Why is Calvinism surging?

First it is not the 'overwhelming majority' it is actually 27 to 31, so it is slightly over half, and not close to an 'overwhelming majority'.
Secondly those who voted about it being a return to biblical truth are already Calvinistic (so it is a bias view point at best). Place the same question down in the other denomination section and see what kind of responce you get. (I wouldn't really want to know the outcome of that one though) However, a better question to ask to showthe voters were NOT bias is to ask 'how many voted it is a return to biblical truth, were NOT Calvinists??' Hmmm... Maybe I missed one Also, Martin and Russell55 are the ONLY two Calvinists who voted outside the 'Return' Catagory (and yet Martin also voted in the Return Catagory as well). So do you see the biasness of the vote?

Many non-Cals voted 'these things come and go' referencing not to a fad but a biblcal view that is part of the scriptural balance maintained via both views. When one goes to far afield from truth the other grows in prominence to bring back a balance of the truth which the other began either leaving or leaving off.

SO... to bring it back to the OP - To be honest I could say it is a return to biblical truth but must qualify that statement with regard to the term 'bibilcial truth', as that which has been left out as the non-cal view point began going to far out. So a rise of the equal but opposite view is nessecary by God to bring a balance back to the church. Not so much that Calvinism IS biblical truth but that through the viewpoint of Calvinism it is bringing back to church more accountability of the truth.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this was mentioned...

But I feel that after looking at Church history.. a few things are apparent.

When people are living in turbulent times, Calvinism surges... it seems to help people to know that God is in control

When times are good, and in times of prosperity, Calvinism declines...

So based on this, I feel that the fact that Calvinism is making a surge depicts a culture that feels it is out of control, and needs to know that God is in control. It is a picture of a frightful people afraid of the future, and they can find comfort in this doctrine.

I chose comes and goes, based on this observation.

Not because I find in unbiblical, I actually find both stances biblical depending on perspectives, but because this is what church history has spelled out.

The turbulent times of the reformation needed Calvinism.
The prosperous times of the 20th century didn't...

Turbulent times are coming back.. the church needs to know that God is in control.

 

Please clarify for me some Tiny.
I doubt you are saying that when times were good and the church didn't need God anymore so it left a Calvinistic view, and when they need God again they came back.?

Please clarify since 'I KNOW' that is not what you meant though there are some who may take an opportunity to shed it as something not that you intended.

 

Surely you jest.

WW1, Great Depression, WW2, Cold War, Energy Crisis, Vietnam, etc.?

Doesn't sound like a walk in the park to me.

 

That is my point. No question given is without some bias when answered, unless the questions are neutral neither favoring one side or the other.

Incorrect, Baptists are Not Calvinists - check your history. Their are some who are and some who are not, but historically speaking the first person historically, John Smyth (1618) who was an English Baptist church that had organized in Holland. He was in no way Calvinistic, nor the one after him, or after him. So Baptists if anything, Historically were Non-Cals. But I believe both views hold truth and later some of that truth came in through Calvinism.

No, I missed none. Tally the numbers James. Another was just added some time last night to make it 28 to 31.

That is what I asked, and told Martin he was a little stinker for doing so
He seems to think anyone can, but I must be left out of the loop.

Look at the names.

Look back at some of the posts and others I have gotten to know their own views on subject. Plus those I don't, it would be the only logical view left (IMO) if it is not a fad, apostacy, nor the ONLY true biblical truth. But I know what the majority of them considered it.

There is nothing inherently wrong our bias, but I was showing that those who presume it to be a return to 'biblical truth' are all Calvinistic. As I said, the way it is worded will keep Non-Cals (who even affirm many of the biblical truths of Calvinism) them from marking it because the question in the positive because it is NOT the only theoligical system of truth.

I know, I do not prefer to have one over the other.

You bet! It was going to far from a biblical perspective and God brought it back.

Seriously I would James, if it weren't for all those pesky flaws, assumptions and presumptions
If it weren't for those, I would be most staunch Calvinist since John Gill

 

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

 

Why not before 1872? Your talking about over 200 years time between John Smyth and then.

And did those creeds you refer to after 1872 come from any General baptists or just the Particulars?

 

?????

reread what I posted Allan
++++++++++++++

Also John Smyth was pre-Baptist

++++++++++++
as to General and Particular....

In the Midlands in 1655, General Baptists far outnumbered their Calvinistic Brethren. The General Baptist Confession of 1651 had been signed by members of thirty congregations of the area, but when the Particular Baptists met in 1655 to constitute their Midland Association, there were but fourteen of their churches in the eight counties, and only seven of them were as yet willing to associate.

Now read each General Baptists confession up till 1890 and you will find about the same thing

 

I was simply asking, why not include any creeds and or confessions that might be BEFORE that time from the General Baptists

Though a few might call him pre, many historians consider John Smyth as a founder of the modern Baptist. Truth is I haven't read one but I'm sure it is out there somewhere.

And your point is?
Secondly that isn't the whole quote now is it

John Smyth Short Confessions of Faith XX Articles 1609"

This Confession found its way into John Cotton's hands in America, and it appears to have been referred to by English General Baptists as late as 1651. - Reformedreader.com (English Seperatist - Baptist Confessions)

However with due regard to your quote:

It is importan not to leave the quote hanging as to WHY the Generals signed on to this cofession:

It is quite apparent those churches who signed on did so NOT because they agreed with its full theological veiw (for they did not and thus the term "General") but because or better, for 'associating' (unity) with one another. Also it is appartent they did not read the fine print either.

So the General Baptists signed a Confession that states they can no longer associate with other General Baptists. So much for reading

I'm not sure what your wanting since General Baptists didn't make a bunch of creeds or confessions like the Particulars did. Another Confession (revised or more explict) is the 1611 Confession of John Smyth. Set forth is two from before the time you requested. However the fact IS, the General Baptists DID NOT hold to election in the Calvinistic sense because they did not view Christ death was only for a group of people but for every man. This was more the core differences though other arguments could be made.

Yet we must remember the General Baptists were not as creedal as the Particulars so there were few. Historically it can be surmised that due to NOT making Confessions we see the more liberal views creeping and some times walk in.

 

Allan,

The Confession you posted was the "John Smyth Personal Confession".
He was a "seperatist" when this was wrote.

And you tell me to check my history. :laugh:

 

A few creeds for you to look at....only that which deals with election is shown.

 

mercy

Quote:
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1858
V. ELECTION

Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life - not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ - in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.


This is basically an uncomplete thought, because foreseen sight is biblical. This comes from the canon's of Dort. I thought it was beautiful until I came accoss this statement.

We have not merited anything it is God who chose to save those who are meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord

 

meek and humble

Just be meek and humble and trust in Jesus and these men can't take away your salvation, because God promisses you that He will keep you.

Don't make excuses why not to come to Jesus, you just come and Jesus will in no wise cast you out, because you are what the the Fathers has given to the Son

 

Yes, I still say to check it. :laugh:

Especially since the General Baptists didn't hardly make any confessions because they saw no real need to, up till about the American General Baptists.

But other confessions such as A SHORT CONFESSION OR A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF FAITH, 1691 (written by Thomas Collier who founded not a few Particular Baptist Churches but later went General and took many of those churches with him)

The Somerset Confession of 1691

THE COALHEAVER'S CONFESSION, 1745

ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE NEW CONNEXION, 1770

But the two most notable General Baptist Confessions are the Standard of Confessions of 1660 and the Orthodox Creed of 1678.
However, with due regard for the Orthodox Creed here is a quote as follows from English Baptist General Confessions.

No General or Non-Cal has ever denied Predestination nor Gods election and that BOTH are according to God's sole perogitive. We differ and always have on the Mechanics NOT the immutable truth.

 

Please don't tell me you are assuming any of these were General Baptist Confessions.

Come on James, research brother research. These are ALL Calvinistic, with the exception of the Primitive Baptist which hold to the Sovereign Doctrines of Grace just not Calvinism. Thus for all intents and purposes ALL are Calvinistic

 

:BangHead: :BangHead:

Allan,

My point is and always has been about election!!!

as said in this post long ago.

 

not all were calvinist...but most.

I'm just showing all of them.....all that I have ever read before 1870 had a calvinist view of election. The ones you posted...the ones I posted. ALL OF THEM!!!

No research needed. I did mine last month. I wrote on this subject last month. This is why I'm sure of this.

But I also know so much about church history, that I know one cannot know it all.

so...I'll wait and see what you got. So far....not so good Allan.

 

James, Election has never been a contention with regard to it's fact and that is was done by soley by God for His purposes and pleasure. The difference between the two groups was with regard to the 'why' NOT the 'When and How'.

However the election to which you are assigning is not the same election they contend. Yes, both agree that God elected before all things according to His good pleasure and purpose.

HOWEVER, the distinction with regard to that election is disctinct but not with regard to the truth that it happened but rather the mechanics AND THAT is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

So we will see them declare the same truth about election with regard to 'when and the how' but they seperate (when defined) on the 'why'. You can see this in the Somerset Confession 1691

Notice #1 is about when and how, but #2 defines the 'why' which is distinctly different than the Calvinistic version regarding the why.

So as shown in your own post they are the same in with regard to the truth of the 'when and how' but not the why!
Therefore you case does rest, but only in the dead sense

Both views of election is bound up in our views of Atonement.

 

You are confused that any biblical truth IS Calvinistic. Point in fact it is not. It is truth that both sides claim and is so seen as immutable. The biblical view of election which Non-Cal and Cal hold is not Calvinistic nor Non-Cal in nature but simply biblical.

And Yes, all the confessions you stated were Calvinistic, except for the one that was Primitive Baptist who declare themselves Not Calvinists but hold strengently to the Doctrines of Grace.

Please note one of those confessions who did not hold to the Soveriegn Doctrines of Grace.